Thread by @HowardFMaclean

Alright, I'm at the @InnerSouthACT public forum on the new planning bill. If you're a sane person that doesn't spend their evenings attending community forums about urban planning, feel free to follow along. #CBR @GreaterCanberra

First up is Richard Johnston, the head of the Kingston Barton Resident group talking about his impression of the planning bill. The first substantive theme is about the concentration of powers in the Chief Planner.

This is a fairly common thread of concern among community groups and others that have had a look at the planning bill, on both ends of the NIMBY-YIMBY spectrum. The Chief Planner can only be fired for cause and has greater powers under the new bill.

Anyone who's ever heard of Robert Moses can imagine why concentrating planning power into a single public servant who effectively isn't accountable or responsible to the Legislative Assembly can imagine why.

We've been interrupted by someone on Zoom accidentially broadcasting to the entire room without realising it.

We're now onto a general critique of the new outcomes based system and how that plays into DAs. No one seems to really knows how the outcome based system will work in practice, so this is a pretty fair critique.

We're now onto recommendations. One is to provide the draft territory plan and district strategy prior to the new planning act being passed.

2 is to increase the involvement of the LA in the process and to minimise the role of regulations and delegated instruments.

Next up is Tim Field? who opens by describing the new bill as a potential disaster, saying that he doesn't see a link between the objectives and the mechanics of the bill. We're once again into a discussion of the outcome based systm.

Another outcome based framework is the Aged Care Act apparently, and we're into a long analogy on the framework of the Aged Care Act and how it applies to outtcome based frameworks in general.

Tim praises the actual stated outcomes in the act itself, but says that the problem is that ther'es not enough clarity about controls concerning how they're implemented.

RZ1! Drink! Says that a problem is that it's unclear if the new system will prohibit multi-family homes in RZ1 areas (and of course this is framed as a bad thing).

We're now running through a hypothetical where the outcome based system might allow developers to build townhouses in RZ1 areas, and we need mandatory rules in order to prevent this.

There are actual potential problems with the level of discretion in the new system, and creating more clear "as right" rules is a good idea. But it's pretty telling that the nightmare scenario reached to demonstrate this is the idea that someone might build townhouses.

Tim talks about the need for a deep consultation between all stakeholders, to create a vision for where we want the inner south to be in ten years, and then passes the torch.

Gordon Lowe, the Director of Planning from the Molonglo group (the developer of the Dairy Road development) is up now.

Again the question about how the outcomes sought is unclear, and that the principles of good consultation are not statutory, they're the regulatory, and the importance of consultation is to good development.

"Consultation is a fundamental cause of conflict in the planning process" Says that he'd prefer a concept of "participation" instead.

Which sounds good in theory, but I've found that these kind of processes get current residents (who don't like new housing) and not future residents (who do, but don't live there and aren't part of the conversation.

Kind of telling that he frames this in part as a way about avoiding litigation from community members. Reposting this article from Demsas about why giving people the ability to sue becuase they don't like an apartment block being built is a bad idea.

theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/…

To be clear, we should consult widely and seek lots of input on what we do with land. But people will disagree, and it's a better idea to allow democratically accountable bodies to make decisions rather than allowing rich people the ability to sue to change outcomes

We're running through an exmaple now, looking at a previous project on Gipps Street in Melbourne and how some of those principles could be aplicable, for a development that involves heritage.

Bringing it back, he talks about how the Territory plan should clearly articulate the desired outcomes and avoid generic statements, or should seriously increase public participation.

We're now onto a section about Rules based development. Talks about how existing rules in collingwood would have resulted in bad outcomes, because it results in cookie cutter designs that maximise for profit (paraphrased).

We get an example of a very bespoke development on this site that was the result of extensive community participation and the extensive iterative design proceses that ends up producing a very interesting building

Deakin Residents Association President is now up talking about the time that he spent three hours arguing against a ACTPLA QC in a planning debate. Drink!

Beatrice talking about how we're in a climate emergency, and how when she was driving here she heard it was getting worse, and we shouldn't build anything that isn't essential. Asks the speakers for comments about climate change.

Graham says that the industry is worried about cliamte change and that the industry should be called to account, and he's happy for there to be accountability measures to ensure this.

Richard says that climate change is an emergency. "I don't see anything in this bill that will assist this" notes the existence of the objectives but says he thinks that they'll be ineffective.

Interesting question on if the outcomes based system will result in more or less appeals to ACAT. Richard thinks that the outcomes system might result in more litigation but it's unclear if it'll be successful given how hard it will be to ground an appeal

We're now onto the role of the Design Review Panel, and about how developers are required to go to Design Review Panel prior to consultation, and how this can create problems with how genunine consultation can be.

Question about next steps. Chair is now saying that the deadline for submissions is coming up fast and an extension might be good.

Question gets thrown to Vassaroti (Greens MLA). Says that the Territory and District plans are "where the rubber hits the road" for what things actually mean. Says she thinks there is a need for a new act, and wouldn't be keen on slipping timelines.

Peter Cain is now up, says that he'd had a meeting with the Chief Planner, and that an objective is to ensure a variety of residential developments in currently restrictive zoning settings.

We're now up to talking about the 70/30 infil target, and how this plays into the planning agenda. Says that he agrees that we should see the entire planning framework together rather than iterative. "Need to see the whole package together"

We're now onto the urban forest bill. This is the replacement for the Tree Protection Act for those not in the loop.

Shane Rattenbury (Greens MLA) is now addressing the planning review, saying that it's important to note that the bill is a draft and that the greens don't agree with everything in the Bill, and this conversation is needed.

"Peter flippantly referred to the 70/30 rule", and now we are debating the west tuggers greenfield debate in the assembly. Chair is asking if there's a commitment from the Greens if there's a commitment for the Planning Committee to hold an inquiry.

Shane notes that the Territory Plan isn't coming for many months, and that waiting for it would result in a delay.

Daniel, a branch manager from city services in the Transport Directorate is up. Describing the Urban forrest bill as "unashamably a bill that looks to preserve, foster and plan for more trees. It's all about trees"

Notes the need to gain 200k trees on net by 2045 to meet canopy targets, and that it's a "big ask" and that the UFB is intended to tackle this.

"If I am a developer, and I have my eye on a block in Griffith, and there's lot of big trees, 20% covering the block... What this Bill does is incentivise that developer to ask if I can develop a solution to let those trees remain"

This is one of my concerns about our rationale about ACT tree legislation by the way. It implicitly places older, leafer suburbs with higher levels of protection than newer suburbs without canopy cover.

If developers can't maintain canopy coverage in 20 years after a development, then they'll be taxed into a "canopy contribution fund" that will maintain the urban forest.

For owner occupiers, not developers "For every tree that is lost from a single residential block, two trees must be planted" or else a contribution to the fund at 600 dollars a tree.

This is going through a lot of the technical featurs of the UFB, which are public, and I'm worried about accidentially misrepresenting this man (who is very passionate about trees), so I'll wind back on the detail for a bit.

Helen Oakey, the exec director of the ACT conversation council is up. Begins by noting the importance of the mature tree action plan (for native trees). Notes the rate of mature tree loss due to greenfield development.

Notes the importance of canopy for reducing urban heat, particularly in Gunghalin and Molonglo. Notes that Woden was once a tree-less plain, and that suburbs gain trees over time.

We're now getting a lot of comments from the room about how Molonglo won't ever get to that kind of tree cover. Helen says that if we need shared space for canopy cover where private canopy cover isn't possible.

Some quite nuanced discussion about how not all trees are equal, and serve different functions, with some being better for canopy, some being better for habitat/pollinators, and some good for winter solar access, growing at different rates.

Helen says that we need more compliance workforce to enforce tree protections, for example re people parking under trees on nature strips, and about how more awareness is needed for people to understand that parking under a tree on its root system isn't great for the tree.

Notes that the Planning Bill is the process, not the content of the system. Says she has "some sympathy" for seperating the two out. "I can understand why it's complex, it's such a huge piece of work." The new territory plan hasn't been drafted, it's at very early stages.

Says that the Territory plan should consider urban biodiversity more. Says that the Conversation Council supports infil, because greenfield is very damaging to bio diversity. "We are facing an extinction crisis" We live in one of the lowest density cities...

Says that she supports medium density with shared greenspace. Go Helen. Says she thinks it can be done, and I agree.

Chair asks Helen if she's concerned about the ability of the Chief Planner to override the Conservator of Flora and Fauna on tree related matters. Helen says ultimately there needs to be a single decision maker, and shifting around who it is doesn't change that.

We're now onto a discussion about larger projects becoming disallowable instruments, rather than just being a chief planner decision.

It's broader Q&A. Comments about tree loss in some suburbs, a statement from a member of the audience to oppose the construction of a crematorium in Symonston.

I ask a question about how EPSDD plans to balance preserving the canopy in the inner south and existing tree numbers with infil in the inner south that would have high levels of environmental benefits elsewhere.

Daniel describes this as the "$65 million dollar question" and says he doesn't have a good answer, and that the government would do what it could but would be relying on proponents.

Someone helpfully suggests that people should pay less in rates for every tree they have on property. Which seems like a great way for multimillionaire homeowners on 1250 square meter blocks to pay less in tax than a worker that lives in an apartment but okay.

We get another comment about the reason why the Inner South has so many trees is that the average block size is so much larger than elsewhere in Canberra. Obligatory reminder that enormous suburban blocks has a lot of environmental costs for everyone else.

Light rail question regarding the recent heritage listing! Drink! Chair shut that part of the question down. Things are wrapping up now as we're out of time.